What any status permits is defined by the terms of that status, and the Gold Card program's terms are set out on its official government page. It should not be assumed to authorize a particular job, and the official framework should be read directly before any commitment is made.
Ask what the status permits, not what a counterparty says it permits
The reliable method for any immigration question is to identify the status, find the official statement of what that status permits, and match the intended activity against it. That method does not change here. The Gold Card program is described officially as resting on a gift to the U.S. government plus a processing fee, and it is not one of the conventional statutory visa categories, so assumptions carried over from those categories are unsafe. Where the intended activity is a specific job with a specific United States employer, the conventional routes have well-defined answers: TN for a listed profession, L-1 for a qualifying intra-company transfer, E-2 for an enterprise the applicant owns and directs. Have those assessed by a licensed United States immigration attorney alongside, rather than instead of, reading the official program material.
Hypothetical example: a carbon-fibre canoe-moulding operator is told a payment allows any U.S. job. The review should decide whether official terms actually authorize the claimed activity, using official program material, payment condition, job facts, and separate category rules. Ask for the missing primary record before selecting a filing or travel step. The usual error is that a payment concept cannot replace employment authorization analysis. Put the conclusion in a dated fact sheet so later changes in duties, ownership, or qualification remain visible.